I agree, the one thing that would have added more power and performance would have been direct injection FI. No one at BMW has told me why it was not considered since lower model i.e. 335 (in US) have it, but not the new M3. Probably a cost issue, but how much would this have added to the car? Maybe for year 3 or beyond upgrade?

More likely a packaging issue.....see how tight the S65 / S85 engines are?? No room.

__________________

"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari

Not sure I follow your "not sure". I am comparing the E46 M3 vs. E46 M3 CSL % torque gain at different rpm then applying simple ratio-ing to the E92 M3 case. The percent gain is absolutely different at different rpm.

At the rpm where each (E46s) have peak torque (4900) the torque figures are straight from BMW specs. The peak torque increase was (273-269)/269 = 1.5%. But developing more torque at higher rpms is more important than developing a great peak torque percentage increase. This is basically saying hp is more important than torque. Indeed the torque gains (as a percentage of base) at the rpm of peak hp are equal to torque gains (again on a percentage basis).

(360-343)/343 = 5% just as (239-228)/228 = 5%

Anything you are not sure of here?

So I agree with you that enhancements to the E92 M3 for modding or by BMW for the CSL will not do much to the peak torque. Yet I disagree that there is almost no torque to be had. One needs to qualify the torque curve not just peak figures, which seems to be what you did in your original post. BMW should be able to get at least 5% more torque at the rpm of peak hp, hence 5% more hp, through breathing enhancements alone. That would be 440 hp (441 for the sticklers and that is based on 420 hp not 414...). I'm guessing by raising the redline to 8500-8600 and/or by doing a bit better than the 5%, we will see 450 hp.

More likely a packaging issue.....see how tight the S65 / S85 engines are?? No room.

If Audi found room on a very similar engine layout (V8, 4 valve/cylinder, quad OHC) there is no reason BMW couldn't have. See image below - you can see the DI components. DI also fits in perfectly with BMWs efficient dynamics paradigm. Maybe BMWs technology can reach requirements for 7,000 rpm (335i) but not 8400. Or maybe they wanted a system good for 8600-8700 rpm. Maybe Audi is simply ahead of BMW here. If you say who got a V8, DI, 8000+ rpm car to market first, Audi is way ahead of BMW since they had this back in 2006 in the RS4 (mules likely fully functional in 2004). It is now 2008.

If Audi found room on a very similar engine layout (V8, 4 valve/cylinder, quad OHC) there is no reason BMW couldn't have. See image below - you can see the DI components. DI also fits in perfectly with BMWs efficient dynamics paradigm. Maybe BMWs technology can reach requirements for 7,000 rpm (335i) but not 8400. Or maybe they wanted a system good for 8600-8700 rpm. Maybe Audi is simply ahead of BMW here. If you say who got a V8, DI, 8000+ rpm car to market first, Audi is way ahead of BMW since they had this back in 2006 in the RS4 (mules likely fully functional in 2004). It is now 2008.

As I have said repeatedly no excuses for BWM on this one.

If the question were "Who got a V8, second gen DI, 8000+ rpm on the market first," there wouldn't be an answer right now...

If Audi found room on a very similar engine layout (V8, 4 valve/cylinder, quad OHC) there is no reason BMW couldn't have. See image below - you can see the DI components. DI also fits in perfectly with BMWs efficient dynamics paradigm. Maybe BMWs technology can reach requirements for 7,000 rpm (335i) but not 8400. Or maybe they wanted a system good for 8600-8700 rpm. Maybe Audi is simply ahead of BMW here. If you say who got a V8, DI, 8000+ rpm car to market first, Audi is way ahead of BMW since they had this back in 2006 in the RS4 (mules likely fully functional in 2004). It is now 2008.

As I have said repeatedly no excuses for BWM on this one.

It shouldn't be a problem with higher revs, these piezo injectors shoot 3 times per stroke or something silly like that.

If it is not a packaging issue, it could be a development issue. Remember the S65 is based on the S85 so there won't be too many changes. If DI was not available for the S85 then it wouldn't be available for the S65 either.

Who knows..... In the end it is about showing off your taillights.

__________________

"Aerodynamics are for people who cannot build engines"......Enzo Ferrari

No need to discuss that again. That's the point you continue to complain about, but as I said already some time ago (which you called a fanboy comment): The kind of DI Audi has featured in the RS4 V8 doesn't provide much more improvement than having the FSI badge in the engine bay.
But hey it's a DI, and since DI is DI, yeah, you're right: Audi has it, BMW not.

No need to discuss that again. That's the point you continue to complain about, but as I said already some time ago (which you called a fanboy comment): The kind of DI Audi has featured in the RS4 V8 doesn't provide much more improvement than having the FSI badge in the engine bay.
But hey it's a DI, and since DI is DI, yeah, you're right: Audi has it, BMW not.

Best regards, south

From what I read, the DI implementation in the RS4 V8 destroys the oil as well. Not sure it is of much BENEFIT, as South said.

Not sure I follow your "not sure". I am comparing the E46 M3 vs. E46 M3 CSL % torque gain at different rpm then applying simple ratio-ing to the E92 M3 case. The percent gain is absolutely different at different rpm.

At the rpm where each (E46s) have peak torque (4900) the torque figures are straight from BMW specs. The peak torque increase was (273-269)/269 = 1.5%. But developing more torque at higher rpms is more important than developing a great peak torque percentage increase. This is basically saying hp is more important than torque. Indeed the torque gains (as a percentage of base) at the rpm of peak hp are equal to torque gains (again on a percentage basis).

(360-343)/343 = 5% just as (239-228)/228 = 5%

Anything you are not sure of here?

So I agree with you that enhancements to the E92 M3 for modding or by BMW for the CSL will not do much to the peak torque. Yet I disagree that there is almost no torque to be had. One needs to qualify the torque curve not just peak figures, which seems to be what you did in your original post. BMW should be able to get at least 5% more torque at the rpm of peak hp, hence 5% more hp, through breathing enhancements alone. That would be 440 hp (441 for the sticklers and that is based on 420 hp not 414...). I'm guessing by raising the redline to 8500-8600 and/or by doing a bit better than the 5%, we will see 450 hp.

what I'm saying is they raised HP 360/343 ~ 5%, and they raised T ~ 5%
they did not yeild more torque...beyond the associated HP increase...
and I'm guessing they only got that at the top end...peak T increased by only 1.5%...
increased volumetric efficiency...

if they would have raised HP 5%, and torque 10%, then I would be impressed...the only real way to that is with compression (mep) or displacement, both of which remained the same...

No need to discuss that again. That's the point you continue to complain about, but as I said already some time ago (which you called a fanboy comment): The kind of DI Audi has featured in the RS4 V8 doesn't provide much more improvement than having the FSI badge in the engine bay.
But hey it's a DI, and since DI is DI, yeah, you're right: Audi has it, BMW not.

Best regards, south

BMW will do it when the time is right:
cost effective
reliability
more refined technology (let someone else suffer the growing pains)
proven effectivness...right now, the gains are negligable...

No need to discuss that again. That's the point you continue to complain about, but as I said already some time ago (which you called a fanboy comment): The kind of DI Audi has featured in the RS4 V8 doesn't provide much more improvement than having the FSI badge in the engine bay.
But hey it's a DI, and since DI is DI, yeah, you're right: Audi has it, BMW not.

Best regards, south

And of course, if we disregard for a moment the various acronyms, suffixes and other insignia bestowed upon these motors, we can reflect that only one of them actually exceeds 100 hp/l.

Beautiful torque curve, as flat as Kansas. The only problem is that its too low!

I was a die hard NA guy for a while but once I got a taste of turbo torque and tunability there was just no going back. Apparently the same thing happened to the BMW M folks with rumors of M5 TT's and now even the M3 may get a couple small snails.

My $0.02

There is an evo article here comparing the 335i and M3, as well as describing failure of the turbo in the former during a long-term test.

what I'm saying is they raised HP 360/343 ~ 5%, and they raised T ~ 5%
they did not yeild more torque...beyond the associated HP increase...
and I'm guessing they only got that at the top end...peak T increased by only 1.5%...
increased volumetric efficiency...

if they would have raised HP 5%, and torque 10%, then I would be impressed...the only real way to that is with compression (mep) or displacement, both of which remained the same...

do you have the factory csl power graph?

I guess we are both getting to the obvious hp and tq are intricately linked with rpm as well but rpm by rpm change one and the other must change by exactly the same percent. It is pretty easy to reconstruct it and likely end up very close to reality based on the E46 M3 curves.

@13: Not exactly correct. The RS4 is 4.163 l which makes it 101 hp/l (rounding up from 100.89). Sure BMW wins hp/l but Audi wins tq/l, 76.1 vs. 73.8 (note my previous tq.l calc for the RS$ used an even 4.20 l). Both are difficult to obtain from an engineering perspective and both are reasonable measures of great engine design. Again I think they are saving some room for the CSL, maybe even a mid life power bump.

No need to discuss that again. That's the point you continue to complain about, but as I said already some time ago (which you called a fanboy comment): The kind of DI Audi has featured in the RS4 V8 doesn't provide much more improvement than having the FSI badge in the engine bay.
But hey it's a DI, and since DI is DI, yeah, you're right: Audi has it, BMW not.

Best regards, south

Well there is a reason if the questions are still unanswered. Do you expect me (or anyone) to believe that Audi added a fairly complex DI system for fun or for marketing as apposed to for efficiency and performance benefits? Highly doubtful. This is a system in a very confined space that required the modification of the head and combustion chamber - absolutely not small things. The car is producing a very good torque/l and I suspect DI has something to do with that. If the M3 had the tq/l of the RS4 it would have 307 ft lb, a full 4% better than it has now.

If you can not prove the Audi system is not good or only offers marginal benefit you shouldn't claim so.

No worries: without doing the maths, I'm guessing someone either double converted from metric or assumed 4.2l capacity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by swamp2

Do you mean instead of "easy" above, "hard"?? Thanks for rubbing it in about the "if and when"...

No, I don't - driving the car you feel like the engine has loads more to give. The subjective experience (wrong, I know) is that the acceleration actually increases all the way to the red line. Not trying to rub it in at all - I hope you get your turn very soon.

Well there is a reason if the questions are still unanswered. Do you expect me (or anyone) to believe that Audi added a fairly complex DI system for fun or for marketing as apposed to for efficiency and performance benefits? Highly doubtful. This is a system in a very confined space that required the modification of the head and combustion chamber - absolutely not small things. The car is producing a very good torque/l and I suspect DI has something to do with that. If the M3 had the tq/l of the RS4 it would have 307 ft lb, a full 4% better than it has now.

If you can not prove the Audi system is not good or only offers marginal benefit you shouldn't claim so.

I guess you know what FSI technology means to Audi, it's almost like what the inline 6 means to BMW. So the question "if marketing alone would be reason enough to implement FSI" isn't that obviously to answer with NO.
We had exactly this discussion already some time ago here: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1222664, and that's what I want you to refer to. It's a very interesting discussion with an RS4 owner who himself said that the benefits over a conventional (manifold injection) engine are "small."
Autobild had a comparison between M3 and S5, the S5 did need more gas than the M3.

I guess you know what FSI technology means to Audi, it's almost like what the inline 6 means to BMW. So the question "if marketing alone would be reason enough to implement FSI" isn't that obviously to answer with NO.
We had exactly this discussion already some time ago here: http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1222664, and that's what I want you to refer to. It's a very interesting discussion with an RS4 owner who himself said that the benefits over a conventional (manifold injection) engine are "small."
Autobild had a comparison between M3 and S5, the S5 did need more gas than the M3.

Best regards, south

EDIT: The M5 has a better tq/l ratio than the RS4...

I remember that discussion.

Although that RS4 owner seems very knowledgable about Audi and DI systems in general, I don't think his opinion that the benefits of the system are small can be taken as gospel. Again since, the answer to the question of if Audi would implement such a system with small or marginal benefits, is no, then we are left with having to trust that Audi engineers are top notch and that there were a combination of economy, performance and price beneifts that warranted the inclusion of the system. And since the system is likely more ewxpensive than a traditional system the cost accountants would have shot it down in a flash if it did not offer some quatifiable benefits. Assuming anything else is really marginalizing the professionals at Audi. Despite all of the nitpicking about the subtleties of the systems, first gen., seconds gen., US vs EU systems, etc. Audi is ahead of BMW, period. You seem to have an immense problem admitting this in any degree at any time.

Lastly isn't comparing mpg across different models from different manufacturers a fairly feeble attempt to prove that Audi's DI system does not offer efficiency benefits?